Connecting professionals and industry with a passion for imaging, radiology and radiation oncology www.bir.org.uk

Menu

Tag Archives: Patient

Dementia is the leading cause of disability in people over 60 years old. Imaging is increasingly used to diagnose dementia to complement physical, cognitive and mental examinations.

Here, Dr Vanessa Newman explores the role of imaging in detecting this cruel and debilitating illness that effects over one million people in the UK.

Dementia: a global burden

Dementia is a leading cause of disability in people aged >60 years, representing a significant burden on patients in terms of quality of life, disability and mortality associated with the condition. This further impacts caregivers, health services and society in general. According to the World Alzheimer Report 2015, it is estimated there are 46.8 million people living with dementia worldwide and this number is due to double every 20 years. Of the 9.2 million people with dementia in Europe over 1.03 million live in the UK, representing a considerable health economic burden. Furthermore, general improved life expectancy of the global population is anticipated to correspond with increased prevalence of dementia.[1,2]

The impact of dementia on informal caregivers – such as family members and friends – is substantial and can result in physical and mental illness, social isolation and poor quality of life for them. Although their participation in the care of dementia patients may alleviate burden on healthcare systems and residential care homes, informal caregiving is not without societal costs caused by absenteeism from work.[2]

Different forms of dementia

Dementia is a progressive illness that affects not only a person’s memory but also their behaviour, mood, cognition and ability to perform daily activities. Progression of dementia is associated with both genetic predisposition and lifestyle factors, including smoking, alcohol, exercise and diet. There are a number of different dementia subtypes with varying incidence in the population, including vascular dementia (VaD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson’s dementia (PD) and mixed dementia. However, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most prevalent form, representing 62% of the dementia population.[3–6]

Diagnosing dementia

Although the majority of patients are diagnosed with dementia in later life, evidence shows that irreversible, pathological changes within the brain occur long before the onset of clinical symptoms. Gradual changes within the brain lead to progressive cognitive impairment and patients often experience a transitional period of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), during which a differential diagnosis may not be possible.[3,7–10]

Formal assessment of cognitive decline, as undertaken by dementia experts, usually includes physical, cognitive and mental examinations [e.g. the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)], plus a review of education and functional levels, medications and health history.[4,11]

Dementia assessment using brain biomarkers and structural imaging

There are several protein deposition biomarkers that may be used to assist in a diagnosis of dementing diseases, such as the presence of TDP-43 (FTD), Lewy bodies (DLB), alpha-synuclein (Parkinson’s disease), plus tau and β-amyloid which are typical in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (although not exclusive to this dementia subtype).[12,13] Historically, reliable diagnoses might only be made post-mortem using histopathology. However, increasingly the imaging of biomarkers or their effect on the living brain can be made earlier on in the course of disease, before evidence of memory impairment is seen.[12,13]

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling via lumbar puncture can help detect abnormal levels of soluble β‑amyloid42, total tau (T-tau) and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), which may assist during the diagnostic workup of dementia patients being assessed for AD.[14] However, lumbar puncture is an invasive method and some patients may refuse the procedure or are contraindicated, for example, if they receive anticoagulant medications. In addition, CSF-based analyses show variability between immunoassay platforms and biomarker concentrations, which may present challenges to clinicians.[14–17]

Brain imaging in patients can assist a clinical diagnosis by examining presence of cerebral pathologies and structural changes, including MRI and CT that can detect subcortical vascular changes. Single-photon emission CT (SPECT) measuring perfusion can help differentiate AD, VaD and FTD,[4,11] while 2-(18F)Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) may assist in detecting impaired neuronal activity by measuring the cerebral metabolic rate of glucose. This has been used to detect abnormal patterns in the brain and the potential to predict conversion from MCI to AD or the diagnosis of AD has been demonstrated.[8,9,18–20] Both SPECT-perfusion imaging and FDG-PET are indirect measures of disease that detect characteristic changes in glucose and oxygen metabolism. However, these imaging modalities show limitations in reflecting the aetiology of prodromal or mild AD.[8,9,11,19,20]

Brain β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and plaque formation occurs early in the pathogenesis of AD, therefore offering the potential to assist in an early clinical diagnosis of patients being evaluated for Alzheimer’s dementia and other forms of cognitive impairment. Amyloid-PET is a relatively recent imaging modality and three 18F-labelled imaging agents are licensed for use in the EU that can detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain, with validated visual assessment methods using histopathology as the standard of truth (Fig.2).[13,21] According to published appropriate use criteria, amyloid-PET is considered to have greatest utility in a subset of dementia patients:[22–24]

where there is an established persistent or progressive unexplained memory impairment (unclear diagnosis); or

where brain Aβ is a diagnostic consideration based on core clinical criteria, and where knowledge of this pathology may alter patient management; or

with progressive dementia and atypical age of onset (usually <65 years of age).

Fig 2: 18F-labelled imaging agents have the ability to detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain (immunohistochemistry with monoclonal 6E10 Aβ antibody).[13]

Amyloid-PET does not alone provide a diagnosis, rather it forms part of the greater assessment workup by clinical experts, including neurologists, psychiatrists and geriatricians. The knowledge of the presence or absence of β-amyloid plaques has been shown to support a confident differential diagnosis and a tailored patient care plan, including use of medications where appropriate. There is also added value for patients and their caregivers in knowing the cause of dementia, enabling decision-making and planning for the future including the possibility of enrolling into clinical trials.[5,6,8,22–28]

The future of diagnostic imaging

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is reviewing guidance on the organisation and delivery of diagnostic services, due for publication in August 2017. The scope of the revised guidance will encompass imaging in neurodegenerative diseases, as part of the wider radiology/nuclear medicine service in the NHS. This will affect not only patients, but all staff who use, refer and interpret diagnostic services in both primary, secondary and tertiary care.[29]

Vanessa’s background is in neurology (epilepsy and Down’s syndrome) and more recently in the field of neuroimaging in dementia. She has worked at Piramal Imaging since early 2015 and during this time has had the pleasure of seeing how quickly this area of medicine is moving, with increasing methods and imaging diagnostics available for use with people living with dementia.

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment for pelvic cancers but it is not widely known that the radiotherapy can affect healthy tissue and bone causing severe pain, incontinence and distress.

Here, Claire Poole explains what it’s like to have Pelvic Radiation Disease (PRD) and why she risked her life to raise money for the charity which has given her so much support.

Each year, in the UK, about 30,000 patients receive radiotherapy for pelvic cancers, half of whom are left with altered bowel and bladder functions that drastically impede a return to normal living. Symptoms of severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues can appear shortly after treatment, or months – even years – afterwards. Patients who report problems to their oncologists, surgeons and radiotherapists are often told that “We’ve cured your cancer so what’s the fuss about?. This response is common and also unacceptable. There are effective ways to manage late effects of pelvic radiotherapy (now recognised as PRD) and patients fortunate enough to get appropriate treatment report an average 70% improvement in symptoms.

Risking my life for PRDA

On Saturday 18th June 2016, I threw myself out of a plane at 15,000 ft. I harnessed my fearand put my life in the hands of the fantastic team at Go Skydive in Salisbury to do a tandem skydive, plummeting to earth at 125mph. I did this wacky thing to raise money for the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association (PRDA).

PRDA is a very small charity run by volunteers. The charity works so very hard trying to raise awareness of this condition among health professionals. PRD, the late effects of pelvic radiotherapy is not widely recognised by our own GPs or indeed the NHS. It has become a big part of mine, my partner, my two children, my family and friends’ lives.

I was diagnosed with cervical cancer four years ago, and had intense treatment consisting of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and internal radiotherapy. Thankfully, due to the treatment received I am still here, however, the radiotherapy treatment has changed my life. Yes it killed the cancer, but it also killed my insides.

Radiotherapy burns, it burns everything it touches. So while radiotherapy is highly effective in treating pelvic tumours, due to the nature of the treatment, it can affect tissues and other organs in the pelvic area. During my treatment not only were the cancer cells burnt and killed, but also all my healthy cells, tissues, bowel and bladder badly affected. Any cancer patient who receives radiotherapy to the pelvic area, will probably at some point experience the late effects of the cancer treatment. This could occur anything up to two to three years or longer after treatment. If this happens, as it did to myself and many other patients, we become unable to enjoy our cancer free lives. Our quality of life is hugely affected, from severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues. All of which can be either minor or cause you to be housebound or even hospitalised. All of which I have, and do experience.

I am a patient at the Royal Marsden and have been now for a few years. A very special man put me in touch with PRDA, a Dr Jervoise Andreyev. This wonderful man is a consultant gastroenterologist, who specialises in PRD and started PRDA. Dr Andreyev has made a huge difference to my life. Without the care of this man and his team, I would not be where I am today. I am not cured, but I am on treatments, have made lifestyle changes and I’m completing a medical trial. All with the help of Dr Andreyev, his team and PRDA.

Why did I raise money for this charity that many of you have never heard of?

I want to get PRD noticed and talked about and to publicise PRDA, to enable PRDA to help and support the thousands of other patients like me, who thought it was OK and normal, to have their quality of life taken from them just because they have had cancer. It is NOT OK. After all, we have fought so hard to beat cancer, surely we deserve to be given the best treatment and support possible, to try and live the rest of our lives happy and healthier with our families and friends?

Thank you so much for taking time in your day to read this. Please, please help me and others to raise as much money as possible to keep this wonderful charity going. To continue helping the thousands of brave, strong, beautiful women and men who need the support of PRDA in their lives”.

About the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association, (PRDA)

PRDA is a support organisation of patients, carers and medical professionals formed in 2007 became a registered charity in 2012 (no 1147802). We currently have 5 volunteer Trustees and 1 part-time self-employed Administrator. We publicise and increase awareness of PRD and provide support and advice to patients suffering from consequences of treatment. We inform and educate cancer nurse specialists, radiographers, oncologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons, gynaecologists and urologists, about the symptoms and effects of PRD and provide clear and simple advice on how to refer patients for specialised help and treatment.

PRDA runs a telephone help line and an ‘email a nurse specialist’ advice service and are backed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to advise us on medical questions. Our website www.prda.org.uk provides support and advice for sufferers and we receive enquiries from around the world. The charity hosts support meetings covering such topics as diet, exercise, self-help, sexual health and radiography addressed by specialists on these topics – our aim is to provide help to enable people to cope better with the consequences of their treatment.

We present the charity’s work and objectives at major conferences throughout the UK via information stands and talks by patient ‘experts’ and have designed and produced literature for both patients and health professionals, working closely with other charities, particularly Macmillan Cancer support, Prostate Cancer, Beating Bowel Cancer, Bowel Cancer UK and Jo’s Trust (cervical cancer). These partnerships are essential to our work and together with Macmillan we chaired a Pan Pelvic Cancer committee of likeminded charities. In 2015 this resulted in a highly successful programme of training days for specialist helpline nurses from major cancer charities, an activity we strive to continue. We currently have an ongoing project in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support to list all gastroenterologists in the UK prepared to see patients with PRD.

PRDA has an active Facebook group with members both from the UK as well as other parts of the world, in particular the USA. This is a closed group and applications can be accepted via the PRDA website.

With a steady and sustained rise in imaging workloads driven by an ageing population, new and evolving technologies, and a drive for patient-focused care, radiology departments are turning to new ways to provide services. Nick Woznitza, Clinical Academic Reporting Radiographer at Homerton University Hospital, east London, and Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, makes the case for radiology departments meeting these ever-increasing demands through radiographer reporting.

Using the example of his experience in the neonatal department of Homerton University Hospital he explains how, with robust research and training, and the appropriate use of skill mix, departments can offer a safe, efficient and patient-focused service.

Expansion of the neonatal medicine department at Homerton produced an increase in plain imaging workload and, coupled with a shortage of consultant paediatric radiologists, meant that the neonatal X-rays did not receive a timely definitive radiology report. The neonatal unit is a large, tertiary referral facility with 46 cots, 900 admissions and 13,600 cot/days per annum in 2013–2014. In order to provide an optimal service to these vulnerable patients, it was agreed to develop a radiographer-led plain imaging neonatal reporting service.

A bespoke, intensive training programme was designed in collaboration with radiology and neonatal medicine at Homerton, Canterbury Christ Church University and the paediatric radiology department of the Royal London Hospital. The radiographer was already an established reporting radiographer, interpreting skeletal and adult chest X-rays in clinical practice, so the training programme focused on the unique physiology and pathology of neonates. Training consisted of self-directed learning, pathology and film viewing tutorials, practice reporting, and attendance at the neonatal X-ray meeting at the Royal London Hospital. This immersive experience was achieved via secondment for one and a half days a week.
Upon qualification of the reporting radiographer, all reports were double read by a consultant paediatric radiologist, to successfully manage the transition into practice whilst maintaining patient safety in line with best practice recommendations.

To ensure that the performance of the trained reporting radiographer was comparable to that of a consultant paediatric radiologist a small research study was conducted (Woznitza et al, 2014), supported by research funding from the International Society of Radiographers and Radiographic Technologists (ISRRT). This study confirmed only a small number of clinically significant reporting radiographer discrepancies (n = 5, 95% accuracy), comparable to the performance of the paediatric radiologists. This study provided further evidence that the introduction of radiographer neonatal plain imaging reporting has not adversely impacted patient safety or care.

Activity figures (July 2011 – September 2014) were obtained from the radiology information system to determine the number of X-ray examinations performed and the proportion receiving a radiographer report. An average of 285 X-rays were performed each month, however, there was a marked increase in March 2012 from 158/month (July 2011 – February 2012) to 328/month (March 2012 – September 2014). The radiographer has made a sustained, significant contribution to the reporting service, interpreting an average of 92.5% of the X-ray examinations and responsible for >95% of examinations in 20 of the 36 months.

Building on the collaboration between radiology and neonatal medicine, a weekly neonatal X-ray meeting was introduced. Facilitated by the reporting radiographer and paediatric radiologist, this forum has increased radiology–clinician engagement and in turn patient care, facilitated discussions and acts as an excellent educational resource. Recognising the importance of this meeting, the senior neonatal clinicians requested that the reporting radiographer convene the meeting when the paediatric radiologist is absent on leave.

The introduction of a radiographer neonatal X-ray reporting service demonstrates that, with collaboration and support, novel approaches can help provide solutions to increasing activity in radiology in an effective, efficient and patient focused manner without compromise on patient safety. Collaboration and team work are fundamental when undertaking service delivery change. The support of both the radiology department, under the leadership of Dr Susan Rowe, and the neonatal unit, led by Dr Zoe Smith with mentorship from Dr Narendra Aladangady, has been essential in the success of this service.

Nick Woznitza biography
Nick qualified as a diagnostic radiographer from the University of South Australia and, following several roles in rural and remote Australia, moved to the UK in 2005.

An accredited consultant radiographer with the College of Radiographers, Nick reports a range of plain imaging examinations including skeletal, chest and neonatal X-rays. He has recently taken up a clinical academic radiography role at Homerton University Hospital and Canterbury Christ Church University, with this blended role facilitating image interpretation teaching to radiographers and other health professionals and his research into the accuracy and impact of radiographer reporting.

Karl Blight, UK and Ireland General Manager at GE Healthcare considers how imaging technology can help tackle the funding challenge facing healthcare

NHS England’s recent strategy paper, ‘A Call to Action’ [1]Identified a potential £30 billion funding gap between spending and resources by 2020-21 if services continue to be delivered as they are now. This challenge will require significant changes in how healthcare is provided so that productivity can be improved and costs reduced.

While much attention will be paid to structural changes around how the NHS is organised, and to where and how patients access healthcare and are treated, funding decision makers need to recognise that investment in appropriate technology can make a major contribution to improving the efficiency of the healthcare system. There is a general misconception that the up-front cost of healthcare technology is prohibitive and, at a time of economic austerity, should be amongst the first areas to be constrained. But, this can be a false economy. Persisting with older technology can lead to higher maintenance costs, disrupted patient appointments due to increased downtime and slower scans, while newer equipment can increase productivity with higher uptimes and better quality images that enable more confident diagnoses and make repeat scans less likely.

Meanwhile, some newer scanners feature state-of-the-art technology that can help save time for clinicians and reduce the burden of paperwork, for example connecting to field engineers who help solve issues remotely so that clinicians can focus on providing patient care. In addition, many medical device manufacturers are investing in the development of new products which have been engineered to meet specific needs at a lower price point. Many are specifically designed to be portable and efficient to operate for the user. Not all situations require the high end technology, and manufacturers are providing equipment that can be tailored to the particular needs of the user or service.

Revolutionary developments in medical technology encompass not only the physical kit. The rise of digitisation, particularly in imaging and in data analysis, transfer and management, is good for the patient and also has huge potential to boost productivity. The combination of big data analytics and clinical information is helping healthcare professionals to identify issues, design solutions and implement patient and system level changes much faster than previously possible. There is a vast reserve of data in healthcare and we are only at the beginning of making the most of it.

The medical device industry, by investing in the development of new technologies, is playing an important role in helping practitioners to deliver better, more cost effective care to patients. Clinicians and technology providers alike now need to ensure that UK healthcare budget holders don’t just focus on the perceived costs associated with new equipment, and instead understand and recognise the value, productivity potential and long term benefits that investing in appropriate technology can bring, both to improving patient care, and to helping the NHS meet its funding gap.

It is rare for a day to pass when the healthcare system in the UK is not in the media spotlight, and it’s not very often that good news sells newspapers. Indeed, as I write this blog, I notice that the “crisis” in A&E is back on the home page of the BBC, with fears over how prepared the system is for the onslaught of winter, while it’s still 30 °C outside!

Of course, it’s worth remembering that for every newspaper headline, millions of people are cared for and successfully treated by the health service in all its guises, each day. However, as the NHS turned 65 last month we have to acknowledge that the system does have structural, long-term challenges. Those born in the years before the NHS, the over 65s, currently make up 17% of the population. In the next 50 years that percentage will rise to 27%, with the over 85s set to be the fastest growing part of the population. These statistics are in part a measure of the past success of the NHS, but an ageing demographic, living with multiple long-term conditions, will be a key factor in how its future is shaped.

There are many debates in the public arena about how to address these challenges in the coming years. The quality, innovation, productivity and prevention (QIPP) agenda undoubtedly has a significant role to play as a framework for the NHS. The rapid adoption and spread of innovation, supporting better quality care and improvements in productivity are all objectives that the whole of the healthcare “industry” can sign up to. Putting the patient at the centre of this process, supported by appropriate technology and resources, will positively impact patient outcomes.

Radiology has a pivotal role here in delivering accurate and timely diagnosis, enabling clinicians and patients to make informed choices about the direction of treatment and care. There was a fascinating debate on the radio last week about the notion of “too much healthcare”, and it concerned a patient who had been successfully diagnosed and treated for cancer. However, the aggressive approach to his treatment had left him with a number of serious long-term issues which could have been avoided. I was left with a sense that better diagnosis and information could have led to a better patient outcome, and significantly reduced the initial and ongoing treatment costs.

As a manufacturer and provider of healthcare services, at Philips we are working to understand how the QIPP agenda is being implemented at local levels, so that we can deliver tailored solutions. By combining the capabilities of the NHS with the technical expertise and infrastructure of a large multinational company, we believe that we can achieve more together. We are on a quest to develop more innovative solutions that will enable you to collaborate freely, diagnose more confidently and provide care passionately.

In the first of our guest blogs, Peter Harrison, Managing Director of Siemens Healthcare Sector, talks about how patient choice is driving a requirement for transparency of clinical performance.

The prevalence of internet usage has had a profound impact on patients’ engagement with their own health. Ask any GP and they will tell you stories of patients presenting to them with a confident (often inaccurate) self diagnosis of their conditions based upon internet research. While I am sure that this can frequently be unhelpful, surely the net impact of patients taking more interest in their health must be celebrated?

The internet has empowered consumers. Parents can now easily check Ofsted reports to establish the highest performing schools, and consumer guides before making purchasing decisions. The writing is on the wall—patients and carers will increasingly (and appropriately) position themselves as healthcare consumers and will demand the information to make informed choices on healthcare provision. GPs will provide counsel, but increasingly, patients and carers will also seek direct access to information. We are already starting to see greater transparency of clinical performance at a surgeon level. A good example can be found at the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery website (http://www.scts.org), where risk-adjusted mortality rates can be viewed down to discrete surgeons, set against a scatter graph plot of their contemporaries.

I anticipate that a similar trend will apply to diagnostic imaging. Consumer demand will drive increased transparency of performance and a range of measures to enable patients and carers to make more informed decisions when exercising choice of provider. Those measures will likely extend to facets of modality performance that support accurate diagnosis (such as spatial and temporal resolution), but I also expect patients to be take a greater interest in wider facets of the imaging experience, such as safety and comfort. When considering modalities that utilise ionising radiation, patients may well want to understand what dose they are likely to receive during a scan. Not unreasonable, but there will also be a responsibility to help patients understand that the radiology team will need to appropriately balance minimisation of dose with the diagnostic quality to ensure appropriate specificity and sensitivity. Perhaps patients will want to establish what dose-reducing technologies are available within the imaging department and the extent to which the technologies are appropriately deployed?

Beyond traditional clinical quality and safety, issues of accessibility will also be of interest, with respect to both waiting times and bariatric considerations. What kind of experience might they expect with regards to patient care and comfort?

As the NHS adopts greater plurality of service provision and extends choice of provider to patients, successful imaging service providers will seek to differentiate themselves by affording due consideration to equipment selection and standards of service. I expect that those who are sensitive to these dynamics will be those who thrive and deliver a sustainable service, dependent upon both clinical referral and patient choice.